D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[doctorhook]

I'm not sure that a "proportional" market share is the best indicator... If my business doubles, but my competitor triples, I may have decreased proportionally, but I still grew, which is the opposite of dying. I do think that Board Games are growing much faster than Role Playing Games, but all the indicators I hear say that RPGs have still been growing steadily the last few years.

I will say that I thought you were actually referring to printed material as the "medium" which is dying.

You're right, it's not the best indicator of a contraction, but it's definitely an indicator of something: even if there are absolutely more customers now than there were before, it's a sign they're losing traction if they aren't attracting a similar proportion of their target customers. This isn't a judgement statement on WotC or Paizo, just an assessment that their business is getting harder. Since the turn of the millenium, the breadth and degree of competition for tabletop gamers' attention has exploded; digital games are better than ever (and getting better every year), board games and card games are surging, and new publishers (e.g. Paizo) are successfully tearing up the market with new products, sometimes even hybrid/non-traditional format games. The net effect for a single publisher isn't good, and it's even worse for anyone trying to operate using a traditional "book-rules-only" strategy--that's the market that's diminishing.

 

[doctorhook]

Being pedantic doesn't mean WotC didn't lie about what the cards were.

Man, those cards were a "collectible card accessory" at best. They were supplemental and completely optional for play.

 

[gyor]

For me the best was the Age of Wonders and its expansion packs, the communication between players in the forums and developers are best. Examples I suggested High Elf Bards would be cooler if you replace the light crossbow with a Longbow and they did it. I suggested that the fluff for Bone Wyven Eggs were that they were cursed, that's why they hatched undead Wyven mounts, so they called them cursed eggs. I suggested that Frostling Succubi get some sort of Frost Magic because Frostlings are Matrarical Society and Frostling Succubi not only deal Frost Damage melee, but can inflict chilling, and eventually even more Frost Magic.

I've seen other fan requests/suggestions taken up as well. Its why Age of Wonders is the best 4x or even the best fantasy game ever made.

No other game has such a good relationship with its fans and I wish WotC and other companies would take notes.

 

[Kramodlog]

Man, those cards were a "collectible card accessory" at best. They were supplemental and completely optional for play.

Which doesn't mean WotC didn't lie.

 

[delericho]

The point is that they were ment to be collected even if WotC said they weren't. They lied. That you focus on the game part means you can't really adress the crux of the question, the collecting part that WotC denied. It is pedantry.

You said:

Lying about the Fortune Cards. They clearly were a CCG and WotC insisted they weren't.

Which makes a rebuttal that they're not a game valid. If the issue is about them being collectible, rather than being a CCG specifically, you should have said that. Especially if you're complaining about WotC's poor communication.

It's also worth noting that there's a difference between "can be collected" and "meant to be collected".

Yup. WotC's "problems" with communcations aren't new, sadly.

You know what - the last time I was involved in a "WotC lied" discussion, then WotC rep on the boards pointed out that they're actually very careful with what they actually say. The detail matters.

So if you're going to continue to claim they lied, I think it's time for you to cite the specific lie. Because that last time boiled down to a half-remembered quote, so this might well, too.

Anyway, it was a terrible attempt at a money grab and it is a good thing they are gone.

As it happens, I didn't like Fortune Cards either, and I was glad they failed. If they had succeeded, I think we would indeed have seen more CCG-like elements added to D&D, to the detriment of the game.

But not liking a product, or even not liking a company, is a rather different matter.

 

[Kramodlog]

Because that last time boiled down to a half-remembered quote, so this might well, too.

Half remembered? You mean the quote from that journalist from Wired?

The inclusion of new “features,” such as the Fortune Card — which, regardless of what they claim, was meant to be collected since issuing cards in randomized packs with common/uncommon/rare designations by definition makes them collectible

http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

How can a quote I quoted earlier be half-remembered?

But not liking a product, or even not liking a company, is a rather different matter.

And bravo for the non sequitur. That really added to the debate.

 

[delericho]

Half remembered? You mean the quote from that journalist from Wired? http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

No, I mean the time they were accused of lying about not working on 4th edition. That's why I said "that last time". It turned out the key statement in question was that they weren't working on a 4e that required miniatures. It turned out that that quote had been literally half-remembered - and the omission of the "that requires minis" part of it was the difference between it being a lie and not.

Details matter.

How can a quote I quoted earlier be half-remembered?

Where is the quote from WotC claiming that Fortune Cards weren't collectible? You say they were lying when they said that. Fair enough - who said what, specifically, and when?

And bravo for the non sequitur. That really added to the debate.

You don't like Fortune Cards? Fine - neither do I. You don't think WotC are doing a good job of communicating? Fine - neither do I. And maybe you don't like specific individuals at WotC, or even WotC as a company. I wouldn't agree with you there, but it's your prerogative either way.

But if you're going to claim they're lying, that's another thing. At that point, you're moving beyond a simple statement of opinion, and need to back your claim. Specifically, the lie they told about Fortune Cards. Not your summary of it, not Wired's reference to "regardless of what they claim", but the statement itself.

In short: citation needed.

 

[doctorhook]

Which doesn't mean WotC didn't lie.

I'm really not sure what accusing WotC of lying about a dead supplemental product is adding to this discussion. Yep, 4E had at least a couple cracks at collectible card products, but none of them were a game unto themselves, nor were they ever enforced as a competitive element between players. They were never necessary and they were never a game unto themselves, but I'm not even sure what you're accusing WotC of lying about anymore.

I will say this convo is beginning to remind me of 2008, so thanks for that.

 

[Kramodlog]

I'm really not sure what accusing WotC of lying about a dead supplemental product is adding to this discussion.

Check the first thing post I made in this thread and what I was answering to understand. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-community&p=6595959&viewfull=1#post6595959

What behavior has WotC had in the past to promote bad interactions with the fans?

I provided a short list. Not just this example.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, I mean the time they were accused of lying about not working on 4th edition.

Oh, that. Well that isn't what I'm talking about.

And maybe you don't like specific individuals at WotC, or even WotC as a company. I wouldn't agree with you there, but it's your prerogative either way.

Heh. That is pure speculation on your part. I do not know the people are WotC. As for WotC itself, I'm neutral about it and that is the key here. I'm not partisan, so I stand out. I'm not afraid to call its bad shots like I first did in this thread. That can upset less neutral people. It seems to be the case with you. Yes, I am speculating about you, like you just did.

At that point, you're moving beyond a simple statement of opinion, and need to back your claim.

I don't. I do not owe you anything. And the way you're asking for it, doesn't make me want to do it either.